Featured Post

Dancing to the party's tune?

Foreword to this blog:

The main story in this blog was written in August 2017, and then as if I had yet again tempted fate, certain things came to pass. Therefore I have added an update regarding the arrest of Opposition Leader Kem Sokha; a surprising exchange I have had with his daughters, and my response to a strange piece in the Khmer Times.

Cambodians
love dancing in formation, but will they dance to the ruling party's
tune in 2018?

“Problem of
understanding how modern rebellions come about is the reporting of
them”

So coined Peter
Beaumont of the Guardian in 2011. His article
helps to explain the onslaught on media in Cambodia today. The ruling party thinks if no reporting, no rebellion! Let's
examine the context starting with a personal digression.

A
lot of things happen to me over a beer. Back
in 1997 one Saturday afternoon, overlooking Lake Malawi with the
mountains of Tanzania and Mozambique in distant view, my quiet beer
was abruptly disturbed by an enormous explosion. Buildings around me
were obliterated. If it was not for the only solitary brick
construction - a small toilet block - protecting me, I may well have
suffered the same fate.

The Malawian Army blew
up the arms-store of the Young
Pioneers the fervent supporters of Malawi's
President Hastings Banda. The military's sudden change of loyalty
heralded the end of his 31 year rule. That led to a totally
unprepared Opposition to take office.

A few years earlier, I
was in Saudi Arabia working alongside Philippines colleagues. They
were enthralled by events back home. The 31 year rule of Ferdinand
Marcos was coming to a similar unplanned end, due to their People
Power colour revolution. That was yellow by the
way.

Two more long-time
rulers suffered the same fate.- Mobutu Sese Seko Zaire 1965-1997 and
Suharto Indonesia 1967-1998. There are countless others.

Prime Minister Hun Sen
takes pride in keeping abreast of contemporary world affairs. He would do well to
reflect on the parallels from what happened to his former peers.

In all cases, as in
Cambodia today, there was a populace tired of the same rule for so
long.

All leaders had
resisted change. Often they were in denial, surrounded by sycophantic
aides.

They all took extreme
measures to retain power.

Then each suddenly
experienced unanticipated turns of events, and from unexpected
quarters.

None had prepared
properly for any kind of orderly handover of power, least of all to
opponents, if looking ahead at all no further than their children. (Some like Suharto's had earned a a shared nickname "Toshiba" for their wanton profligacy.)

Their countries did
indeed descend in to chaos.

It meant for each of
these once proud leaders that the legacies they craved most - to be
remembered for, to be appreciated for, to mark all their good deeds
and works - were largely destroyed.

History is yet to be
kind to any of them.

Fears have been
ratcheted up in Cambodia of late, by the ruling party to hold on to
power at any cost.

Peter Beaumont ended
his article this way: “Albert Camus, who asked "what is
a rebel?", and answering his own question, said: "A
man who says no." It is at this point, when fear is gone, that
whole nations say no. And it is when tyrants fall.”

It seems to me that far
more people in Cambodia right now are thinking “No”!

We know that according
to the National Election Committee the 46% who voted CNRP in 2017 Commune Elections, plus a few
others, braved all the fears to say “No” to CPP. How many who did vote CPP did so willingly? How many of
the 14% of registered voters who chose not to vote were expressing
“No”? And what of the electorate denied their vote, because of
living and working away from home or having failed to satisfy officials when
wanting to register?

"Mass uncontrolled crowds?

It will not take much
for those thinking “No” to be stirred in to action. Everyone saw
this in 2014 when the post-election protests morphed with the
industrial disputes around Phnom Penh. There really was a momentum
building up until it was violently crushed - just before the tipping point when a
whole nation was about to say “No”?

Cambodia has had two
glimpses of such phenomenal spontaneous turnouts. Who can forget
either of the scenes In Phnom Penh when Sam Rainsy returned from exile in 2013, or
for Kem
Ley's funeral? For all of its party machinery and generous
inducements, CPP has never managed to cultivate such a turnout or any
of the unbridled enthusiasm of the participants. They never will.

Every measure possible
is being taken by the ruling party to prevent Cambodians from
assembling and expressing such views. What is going on with the
media is simply “shooting the messenger” once again in the vain
hope that they will all stay at home forever. I made
that point in relation to the UN Human Rights Rapporteurs,
printed by the Cambodia Daily.

One way or another, it
is hard to envisage anything other than terrible consequences for
Cambodians from the current crackdown. The CPP rock will meet the hard place of the people, especially the youth who without any shadow of doubt want change.

John Lowrie

John Lowrie is a
human resources officer by profession. He has been an aid and
development worker since 1985, working in five developing countries,
and Cambodia since 1998 where he has been country representative of
three international NGOs and formal adviser to seven local
development and human rights organizations.

An Afterthought
One problem with being semi-retired, is not being fully in-the-loop, no longer obtaining as much intimate inside knowledge of interactions with government officials, or imparting suggestions in the same vein. Of course that loss is compensated by the ability to speak more freely, not hidebound by backers or niceties to maintain rapport with those officials for business to be done. But the obvious point is sometimes not known. Some of us do have to maintain constructive engagement even with the most problemmatical of officials through the most troubled of times. I do wonder though how many today are fulfilling that vital task; and injecting some constraint necessarily concealed? Have we replaced people like the late Scott Lieper whose wisdom, always proffered surreptitiously, must be sorely missed in circumstances like today? I doubt it.

Immediate Update 3 September 2017

Within hours of posting this blog and two related tweets, the Cambodian Government arrested Opposition leader Kem Sokha - probably the last major story to be covered by the Cambodia Daily. He is accused of treason for having daalogue with US advisers about how to wrest power from CPP.

Now I have known Kem Sokha since he chaired the National Assembly's Human Rights Commission in the 1990s and of course been responsible for major democracy and human rights training funded by the US and other donors. In fact the demise of my NGO led to the elevation of Kem Sokha and creation of CCHR in 2002 to continue its work.

I am therefore uniquely qualified to point out that there is absolutely nothing treasonable, nor unconstitutional, only legitimate pre-election posturings in the "incriminating" videos. Furthermore in those training sessions and forums not only did the ruling party take full part, but Ministers presided over the opening and closing ceremonies. Legally how can there be any case to answer?

The big question is whether all this will bring the most overdue condemnation from the international community? Will sanctions result? Or only words?

Or as is most likely, as PM Hun Sen will have calculated, will he just ride out the storm until a new mandate is secured? He's not thinking much beyond that date next year, banking on "busines-as-usual" will be resumed? That is what many folks will settle for - those that have thrown their lot in with the ruling elite and its vested interests that control the economy.

The only problem will be what happens next with the disaffected and frustrated?

It is my view that in these troubling times in Cambodia, voices of criticism must remain open and disciplined. I therefore commented on this letter in the Phnom Penh Post.

CNRP ought in my view:

Stick together

Stick on message - one carefully calibrated centrally

Stick to the facts

Stick to the truth

Stick to verifiable statements

In other words " Stck to [best] international standards!

Update 18 September 2017

A great deal has been written about the current sad events in Cambodia. Many are still seeking to influence the influencers (to quote my own tweet) or looking for other angles. One of the strangest ones is in the Khmer Times, worthy of comment, portraying views of the Information Minister in the Lon Nol government of the Pre-Khmer Rouge era. So far my comment has not been taken up by the Khmer Times. Here its is:

Dear Editor

I find it strange that
the Khmer Times would
go all the way back to the Lon Nol era and
Chhang Song in order to shed light on the Kem Sokha case.
The reported comments are interesting if at times contradictory:

“He [Kem Sokha] claimed the US gave money for
a plan to topple the government.

They gave money in order to educate people to
learn how to choose their own leader to lead the government through
free and fair elections.”

It is not clear which
of the two sentences Mr Chhlong stands by or if somehow both are
meant to apply?

I can certainly vouch
for the fact that the United States and many other donors have given
a lot of money to Cambodia since 1993. They do want to bring about
free; fair and credible elections as well as a final end to conflict
and violence employed as means to govern.

Not only has
money been provided towards these laudable aims but also technical
expertise from many international advisors. Kem Sokha refers to them
in the video tape cited as proof of his treason. They are according
to the Prime Minister“the 'third hand', helping the opposition CNRP to invoke
regime change”.

The term “regime
change” is banded about, as if it is automatically bad. It need not
be.

All of these advisors,
many distinguished in their fields, not only advocate “change of
regime” but also “change in regime”. Their messages of
democracy; good governance and citizen-friendly policies are
addressed even more to the governing party than to opposition ones
for obvious reasons. They can be put in to practice sooner rather
than later. Over the last 24 years, ruling party leaders and
officials have indeed taken full part, and in greater numbers, in the
exact same educational sessions as Kem Sokha describes.

It is a fair question
to pose if the United States favours CNRP over CPP? Probably it does
for now. CNRP appears to share more of its values, but then such
backing is given neither exclusively nor unconditionally.

CPP could choose to
adopt similar values, after all they have been put directly to them
over many years, and would gain favour. The converse applies to CNRP.

If - or should I
say when - CNRP
manifests contrary values, as it does for example when referring to
Vietnam, then it can expect to forfeit international backing and fall
rapidly from favour.

Although demography is
making Cambodia a younger electorate, the trend is not stopping it
from maturing in politics and public affairs - one clear benefit of
modern technology. In every election to date it has never given one
party an overwhelming majority over others. They want parties to work
together. They don't want either dictatorship or boycotts. The signs
are clear and first-hand. Who needs them second-hand or third-hand?